Local view for "http://purl.org/linkedpolitics/eu/plenary/2006-05-16-Speech-2-024"
| Predicate | Value (sorted: default) |
|---|---|
| rdf:type | |
| dcterms:Date | |
| dcterms:Is Part Of | |
| dcterms:Language | |
| lpv:document identification number |
"en.20060516.4.2-024"2
|
| lpv:hasSubsequent | |
| lpv:speaker | |
| lpv:spokenAs | |
| lpv:translated text |
"Mr President, the debate about Europe’s future is set to continue for some time yet. In fact, the discussion on the EU’s course and policy will be a permanent fixture. The Commission is right to point out that Plan D is not just linked to the debate about the constitutional treaty, however important that may be. It is a first exercise in more open, more pro-active European communication. More and more communication is an essential pre-condition for successful European cooperation.
Last week, the Commission presented the first results of operation ‘Plan D’, which I welcome with open arms. The Commission clearly indicates the concrete action that has been taken, which, in itself, proves that the Commission sets great store by sending out a clear message. At the same time, we have to be careful we do not fall into the trap of communicating for communication’s sake. In communication, less is often more. Moreover, the way it is done is only one of the two components of successful communication. We must also ask ourselves what exactly we want to say about the future of Europe and, above all, how this message relates to the action which the European Union has taken.
The information which the Commission’s activities have produced so far is in this respect very interesting. Public surveys – I refer in particular to Eurobarometer – have revealed that Europeans have high expectations of the European Union in many areas, which inevitably leads us to conclude that a negative vote on the EU is in any event partly attributable to the fact that the European Union does not perform the way it should. I do not, then, have any problem with the Commission focusing on a concrete agenda of policy. Does this, though, sufficiently highlight the context in which we have to operate? I have a few observations to make.
Firstly, the citizens’ agenda must be sufficiently substantial in order to meet the citizens’ expectations at least to some extent. Has the Commission in this respect achieved enough or has it only considered policy that is already in the pipeline? Moreover, we must not only consider the expectations – which the Commission has clearly done – but also the citizens’ perception of the environment. Should we not carry out studies into the way in which the citizens experience Europe and ask ourselves whether the citizens’ agenda can make a positive contribution to day-to-day life?
Secondly, an agenda such as this creates expectations which we need to meet. Indeed, if we clearly state what we want to achieve and then fail to deliver, then this will only contribute to a negative opinion about the European Union, which brings me to my last point.
Which is the question as to the direction of the debate about Europe’s future in the different Member States. Whilst the Commission, based on what emerged from the Eurobarometer survey, has managed to indicate the topics that are of concern for the Europeans, how does it assess the state of affairs in all those national discussions about European cooperation, the direction in which we are going, and the constitution? Is some degree of convergence kicking in, or are we still no further down the road than we were in July 2005?
All institutions have a role to play, but certainly as a Member of this House, I should like to draw the Council’s attention to its particular responsibility for the execution of a substantial policy agenda that is necessary to get the public to back the European project."@en1
|
Named graphs describing this resource:
The resource appears as object in 2 triples